References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

• 2009Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches174 cited
• 2008The Representation of Women on the Editorial Boards of Major Medical Journals: A 35-Year Perspective129 cited
• 2015Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis79 cited
• 2011Dissemination biases in ecology: effect sizes matter more than quality74 cited
• 2019Achieving Gender and Social Equality: More Than Gender Parity Is Needed73 cited
• 2006Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications71 cited
• 2002The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias67 cited
• 2005Reviewing the Reviewers: Comparison of Review Quality and Reviewer Characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology67 cited
• 2009Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published?67 cited
• 2019The cases for and against double-blind reviews65 cited
• 2016The Changing Face of Epidemiology62 cited
• 1999The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance61 cited
• 2014A Stronger Post-Publication Culture Is Needed for Better Science